An article about MoveOn.Org http://www.nypost.com/...columnists/45430.htm was very intersting in their attempts to "rile up the troops" so to speak about the possibility of a senate fillibuster which they say they are in favor of. I could not help but notice though that they don't really want a true fillibuster only threaten it to gain public favor. Dick Morris http://www.thehill.com/...ckMorris/042705.html explains why a real fillibuster will not work. Seems like Morris has it right to me.
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Senate Fillibuster? [armytriguy]
[ In reply to ]
I think if "a real filibuster will not work" and the Republicans had nothing to lose from forcing the Dems to "put up or shut up", Frist would have pushed for the vote already and forced the Dems into the awkward position suggested by DM. Since that hasn't happened yet, I think DM hasn't laid out the full story and explained what the risks are to the Repubs in forcing the vote - namely, that a real filibuster just might work and that would be a crushing defeat for GWB. I suspect Frist is worried about that possibility so he is trying to figure out a way to set up the vote with the only possible outcome being a positive one for GWB - thus, the nuclear/constitutional option.
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
Re: Senate Fillibuster? [GJS]
[ In reply to ]
namely, that a real filibuster just might work and that would be a crushing defeat for GWB.
I'd pay good money to see the dems carry out a real filibuster.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
I'd pay good money to see the dems carry out a real filibuster.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Re: Senate Fillibuster? [GJS]
[ In reply to ]
And not getting the 12 or so court of appeals judges confirmed that are being filibistered would be a great victory for President Bush?
I was in the Sixth Circuit on Tuesday, and the Presiding Judge on my panel (a Clinton appointee) did comment about how the Sixth Circuit still have four fewer active judges than it should have. Since the Sixth Circuit is only supposed to have 16 active judges, keeping four judges off the bench does have a significant impact upon its administration of justice
I was in the Sixth Circuit on Tuesday, and the Presiding Judge on my panel (a Clinton appointee) did comment about how the Sixth Circuit still have four fewer active judges than it should have. Since the Sixth Circuit is only supposed to have 16 active judges, keeping four judges off the bench does have a significant impact upon its administration of justice
Re: Senate Fillibuster? [vitus979]
[ In reply to ]
I'd pay good money to see the dems carry out a real filibuster.
or the repubs for that matter. isn't that one of the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" agreements in the senate? - neither party actually makes the other carry out a filibuster anymore.
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
or the repubs for that matter. isn't that one of the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" agreements in the senate? - neither party actually makes the other carry out a filibuster anymore.
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
Re: Senate Fillibuster? [CTL]
[ In reply to ]
And not getting the 12 or so court of appeals judges confirmed that are being filibistered would be a great victory for President Bush?
??? come again
I was in the Sixth Circuit on Tuesday, and the Presiding Judge on my panel (a Clinton appointee) did comment about how the Sixth Circuit still have four fewer active judges than it should have. Since the Sixth Circuit is only supposed to have 16 active judges, keeping four judges off the bench does have a significant impact upon its administration of justice
The only way an administration from either side is able to keep the courts full is to put forth candidates that are somewhat palatable to the other side. Evidently these 12 or so aren't, just as the Clinton nominees that never made it into the j-committee weren't. It's a game - thank God I work on transactions.
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
??? come again
I was in the Sixth Circuit on Tuesday, and the Presiding Judge on my panel (a Clinton appointee) did comment about how the Sixth Circuit still have four fewer active judges than it should have. Since the Sixth Circuit is only supposed to have 16 active judges, keeping four judges off the bench does have a significant impact upon its administration of justice
The only way an administration from either side is able to keep the courts full is to put forth candidates that are somewhat palatable to the other side. Evidently these 12 or so aren't, just as the Clinton nominees that never made it into the j-committee weren't. It's a game - thank God I work on transactions.
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
Re: Senate Fillibuster? [GJS]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Senate Fillibuster? [CTL]
[ In reply to ]
President Bush's appointees are already not being confirmed.
I'd say some of them are not being confirmed. A number of them have been confirmed.
He loses nothing more than he already has lost if a vote is taken to change the rules and the filibusters are not broken.
Again, I'm thickskulled. I thought "if a vote is taken to change the rules" was one solution for the Repubs, and that moving forward with a vote on the nominees ("and the filibusters are not broken") was another approach. In his article, Dick Morris was saying screw the rule change, move forward with the vote and force the Dems to filibuster and look like dipshits before God and country. I guess I don't understand your statement highlighted above.
No Democrat has articulated any reason why any of the President's nominees to the Sixth Circuit (the Honorable Susan Beike Neilson, the Honorable Henry Saad, the Honorable David McKeague and the Honorable Richard Griffin) should not be confirmed. All of these judges have been on the bench for more than ten years and all have extensive records of how they would rule on issues. This is because the Democrats have not justifiable basis for opposing them
I think it's called political leverage, a tactic used by both sides of the aisle. Didn't Reid say the Dems would be glad to move forward with these judges if some of the other, more objectionable ones would be withdrawn.
Can you give me the name of a single nominee to the Court of Appeals that was ever filibustered in the 212 years of the Republic before President Bush was elected? No, you can't because these filibusters are completed unprecedented.
I think there is more than one way to skin a cat, and blocking nominees from ever coming before the judicial committee is one of them. We know that was used by the Repubs during the Clinton years.
The Republican Senate needs to act now to restore this process to how it operated for more than two centuries.
I thought the filibuster mechanism had been in place almost that long such that voting to remove the filibuster would actually be changing the process rather than restoring it. One reason for the hesitancy by many Repubs to move forward with this rule change is b/c of the way it will affect them in the future if they are ever again in the minority.
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
I'd say some of them are not being confirmed. A number of them have been confirmed.
He loses nothing more than he already has lost if a vote is taken to change the rules and the filibusters are not broken.
Again, I'm thickskulled. I thought "if a vote is taken to change the rules" was one solution for the Repubs, and that moving forward with a vote on the nominees ("and the filibusters are not broken") was another approach. In his article, Dick Morris was saying screw the rule change, move forward with the vote and force the Dems to filibuster and look like dipshits before God and country. I guess I don't understand your statement highlighted above.
No Democrat has articulated any reason why any of the President's nominees to the Sixth Circuit (the Honorable Susan Beike Neilson, the Honorable Henry Saad, the Honorable David McKeague and the Honorable Richard Griffin) should not be confirmed. All of these judges have been on the bench for more than ten years and all have extensive records of how they would rule on issues. This is because the Democrats have not justifiable basis for opposing them
I think it's called political leverage, a tactic used by both sides of the aisle. Didn't Reid say the Dems would be glad to move forward with these judges if some of the other, more objectionable ones would be withdrawn.
Can you give me the name of a single nominee to the Court of Appeals that was ever filibustered in the 212 years of the Republic before President Bush was elected? No, you can't because these filibusters are completed unprecedented.
I think there is more than one way to skin a cat, and blocking nominees from ever coming before the judicial committee is one of them. We know that was used by the Repubs during the Clinton years.
The Republican Senate needs to act now to restore this process to how it operated for more than two centuries.
I thought the filibuster mechanism had been in place almost that long such that voting to remove the filibuster would actually be changing the process rather than restoring it. One reason for the hesitancy by many Repubs to move forward with this rule change is b/c of the way it will affect them in the future if they are ever again in the minority.
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
Re: Senate Fillibuster? [GJS]
[ In reply to ]
Carl Levin has been personally blocking all Sixth Circuit nominees for years. It has nothing to do with the particular judges. I forget what he has a bee in his bonnet about anymore.
The Democrats will block anyone they view as a potential SC nominee from getting on the Court of Appeals. All SC nominees have come from the Appeals Court for 20 years or more. The Democrats want to stop the farm team, so it is easier to defeat SC nominees later.
There are 179 positions on the Court of Appeals in total. You don't seriously think anyone gives a damn about these 12 nominees whose name no one will remember after they get confirmed, do you? It is all about the SC.
The Democrats will block anyone they view as a potential SC nominee from getting on the Court of Appeals. All SC nominees have come from the Appeals Court for 20 years or more. The Democrats want to stop the farm team, so it is easier to defeat SC nominees later.
There are 179 positions on the Court of Appeals in total. You don't seriously think anyone gives a damn about these 12 nominees whose name no one will remember after they get confirmed, do you? It is all about the SC.
Re: Senate Fillibuster? [ajfranke]
[ In reply to ]
The Democrats will block anyone they view as a potential SC nominee from getting on the Court of Appeals. All SC nominees have come from the Appeals Court for 20 years or more. The Democrats want to stop the farm team, so it is easier to defeat SC nominees later.
Aren't 7 of the 9 current SC judges Republican nominees? Seems that the Dems won't block the entire farm team. The Repubs blocked about 60 of Clinton's nominees (total, not just Ct of Appeals). My point is both sides play these political games, and have for years.
There are 179 positions on the Court of Appeals in total. You don't seriously think anyone gives a damn about these 12 nominees whose name no one will remember after they get confirmed, do you? It is all about the SC.
I'm not sure if the number is 12 (I think it's 7, but 12 was the number originally suggested on this thread so we'll go with that). It is hard to say which ones would become a household name if confirmed (think Posner), but I agree, it is mainly about the SC.
Anyway, how do you think this is going to shake out? Why doesn't Frist just go forward with the proposal to change the rules to take away the ability of the Senate to filibuster Ct. of Appls. nominees? Doesn't he have the votes to do that? It seems that if the Repubs think that's such a sure fire way to get these nominees confirmed, they should do it. What is stopping them?
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
Aren't 7 of the 9 current SC judges Republican nominees? Seems that the Dems won't block the entire farm team. The Repubs blocked about 60 of Clinton's nominees (total, not just Ct of Appeals). My point is both sides play these political games, and have for years.
There are 179 positions on the Court of Appeals in total. You don't seriously think anyone gives a damn about these 12 nominees whose name no one will remember after they get confirmed, do you? It is all about the SC.
I'm not sure if the number is 12 (I think it's 7, but 12 was the number originally suggested on this thread so we'll go with that). It is hard to say which ones would become a household name if confirmed (think Posner), but I agree, it is mainly about the SC.
Anyway, how do you think this is going to shake out? Why doesn't Frist just go forward with the proposal to change the rules to take away the ability of the Senate to filibuster Ct. of Appls. nominees? Doesn't he have the votes to do that? It seems that if the Repubs think that's such a sure fire way to get these nominees confirmed, they should do it. What is stopping them?
_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts
I don't know how it will shake out. I will make a few evaluations. First of all, the Republicans still don't know how to act as a majority party, at least the Senate Republicans. As a group, they are basically afraid of winning. The Democrats have no such inhibitions. The Democrats don't know how to do anything other than play to win.
Senators in general, Republican Senators in particular, don't like to actually make a decision or cast a hard vote. Their instinct is always to delay in the hopes of ultimately avoiding.
In this case I do believe that Frist is boxed in and will have no choice but to eventually call the vote. If the Democrats believe they will lose that vote, they will cave in to avoid it. Reid started laying the foundation for that this week. I do not know which way the vote will go. If the Republicans can't hold 50/55 votes together, they might as well just go into the minority right now.
Ultimately, no one really gives a damn about a handful of Appeal Court appointments.
In response to your first observation, keep in mind that the Democrats have been extremely successful in keeping Bork and others who don't support an expansionist reading of the Constitution off the SC. The Democrats will let the Kennedys and O'Connors on the court every day of the week. The Republicans have basically been beaten badly on this issue over the years by a team that wanted to win more badly.
Weaken the farm team, weaken the first string. It is tough to beat a SC nominee if you just voted for that person for Appeal Court.
Senators in general, Republican Senators in particular, don't like to actually make a decision or cast a hard vote. Their instinct is always to delay in the hopes of ultimately avoiding.
In this case I do believe that Frist is boxed in and will have no choice but to eventually call the vote. If the Democrats believe they will lose that vote, they will cave in to avoid it. Reid started laying the foundation for that this week. I do not know which way the vote will go. If the Republicans can't hold 50/55 votes together, they might as well just go into the minority right now.
Ultimately, no one really gives a damn about a handful of Appeal Court appointments.
In response to your first observation, keep in mind that the Democrats have been extremely successful in keeping Bork and others who don't support an expansionist reading of the Constitution off the SC. The Democrats will let the Kennedys and O'Connors on the court every day of the week. The Republicans have basically been beaten badly on this issue over the years by a team that wanted to win more badly.
Weaken the farm team, weaken the first string. It is tough to beat a SC nominee if you just voted for that person for Appeal Court.